Related papers: Noisy but Valid: Robust Statistical Evaluation of …

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become a prominent method for post-training Large Language Models (LLMs). However, verifiers are rarely error-free; even deterministic checks can be inaccurate, and the growing…

The ability to rigorously estimate the failure rates of large language models (LLMs) is a prerequisite for their safe deployment. Currently, however, practitioners often face a tradeoff between expensive human gold standards and potentially…

LLM-judged benchmarks are increasingly used to evaluate complex model behaviors, yet their design introduces failure modes absent in conventional ground-truth based benchmarks. We argue that without tight objectives and verifiable…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges and synthetic labelers, especially in low-label settings. Yet these systems are stochastic and often overconfident, which makes deployment decisions difficult when…

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as scalable evaluators of model responses in lieu of human annotators. However, imperfect sensitivity and specificity of the LLM judges induce bias in naive evaluation scores. We propose a simple…

Evaluating natural language generation (NLG) systems remains a core challenge of natural language processing (NLP), further complicated by the rise of large language models (LLMs) that aims to be general-purpose. Recently, large language…

Large Language Model (LLM) based judges form the underpinnings of key safety evaluation processes such as offline benchmarking, automated red-teaming, and online guardrailing. This widespread requirement raises the crucial question: can we…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic evaluators of generative AI outputs, a paradigm often referred to as "LLM-as-a-judge." In practice, LLM judges are imperfect predictions for the underlying truth and can…

New Large Language Models (LLMs) become available every few weeks, and modern application developers confronted with the unenviable task of having to decide if they should switch to a new model. While human evaluation remains the gold…

Recent research has shown that large language models (LLMs) favor their own outputs when acting as judges, undermining the integrity of automated post-training and evaluation workflows. However, it is difficult to disentangle which…

Automated \enquote{LLM-as-a-Judge} frameworks have become the de facto standard for scalable evaluation across natural language processing. For instance, in safety evaluation, these judges are relied upon to evaluate harmfulness in order to…

Medical large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance on standardized benchmarks, yet these evaluations fail to capture the complexity of real clinical encounters where patients exhibit memory gaps, limited health literacy,…

Designing robust algorithms capable of training accurate neural networks on uncurated datasets from the web has been the subject of much research as it reduces the need for time consuming human labor. The focus of many previous research…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as automated judges, where practical value depends on both accuracy and trustworthy, risk-aware judgments. Existing approaches predominantly focus on accuracy, overlooking the necessity of…

Large language models (LLMs) can serve as judges that offer rapid and reliable assessments of other LLM outputs. However, models may systematically assign overly favorable ratings to their own outputs, a phenomenon known as self-bias, which…

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm. A critical but under-modeled issue is that judge LLMs differ substantially in reliability;…

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks. We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: (1) Score-Comparison…

We present the Judge Reliability Harness, an open source library for constructing validation suites that test the reliability of LLM judges. As LLM based scoring is widely deployed in AI benchmarks, more tooling is needed to efficiently…

Offering a promising solution to the scalability challenges associated with human evaluation, the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, there are still many…

Noisy partial label learning (noisy PLL) is an important branch of weakly supervised learning. Unlike PLL where the ground-truth label must conceal in the candidate label set, noisy PLL relaxes this constraint and allows the ground-truth…